正畸文獻翻譯
[1]m . Bohner,一些振盪准則一階時滯動力方程,遠東j .達成協議。數學。18(3)(2005)289 - 304。
[2]r·p·阿加瓦爾先生,Bohner,s h .獵隼,振動的二階時滯動力方程,可以。達成協議。數學。問:13(2005)1 - 18。
[3]a,a Aozbekler Zafer,振盪解的二階混合非線性微分方程在脈沖擾動,Comput。數學。:。61(2011)933 - 940。
[4]x x,z . t .徐、劉振盪的一個強制用戶二階脈沖微分方程,Comput。數學。達成。53(2007)1740 - 1749。
[5]d,a . Tiryaki Cakmak,振動性准則某些強迫二階非線性微分方程,達成協議。數學博士。17(2004)275 - 279。
[6]r·p·阿格沃爾,s . r .優雅、振盪的某些三階差分方程,Comput。數學。達成。42(2001)379 - 384。
[7]n . Parhi、振盪和非振動解的二階差分方程涉及廣義差異,達成協議。數學。Comput。218(2011)458 - 468。
[8]l . Erbe,s·h·a·彼得森,獵隼,振動標准二階非線性時滯動力方程,j .數學。肛門:。333(2007)505 - 522。
[9]s r .優雅,r . p . m . Bohner Agarwal,,d .奧雷根,振動的二階強次線性超線性和動態方程,Commun強烈。非線性科學。號碼。同時。14(2009)3463 - 3471。
[10]s h .獵隼,振盪的非線性動態方程在時間尺度,達成協議。數學。Comput。148(2004)81 - 91。
[11]b . Karpuz,無界振盪的高階非線性時滯動力方程,與我校擊斃類型、電子coeffcients擺動。j .涉及。理論不同。Equ。34(2009)1 - 14。
[12]y . b .太陽,z .韓寒,y,y太陽鍋、振動性定理某些第三階非線性時滯動力方程在時間尺度、電子。j .涉及。理論不同。Equ。75(2011)1 - 14。
[13],w·馮·m·黃,強迫振動的二階非線性動態方程在時間尺度、電子。j .涉及理論不同。Equ。36(2008)1 13。
[14]d . x。陳,振盪的標准分數di®為方程,訂購不同。裝備的。2012:33(2012)1 - 18。
[15]問:x張,f·邱、振動性定理二階半線性時滯動態方程與阻尼對時間尺度,Comput。數學。:。62(2011)4185 - 4193。
[16]i Podlubny,分數微分方程、學術出版社,聖地亞哥,1999。
[17]a . a . Kilbas,h . m .斯利瓦斯塔瓦,j•j•特魯希略,理論和應用分數微分方程,愛思唯爾科學BV,阿姆斯特丹,2006。
[18]s Das、功能分數階微積分為系統識別和控制¯陽離子。施普林格,紐約,2008年。
[19]g·h·哈迪,j·e·利特爾伍德,g . P¶olya,不等式,第二版,劍橋大學出版社,1988年,英國劍橋。
[20]t . s .哈桑,振盪三階非線性時滯動力方程在時間尺度、數學。Comput。造型49
『貳』 求一篇口腔方面的外文文獻翻譯成品急用。謝謝大哥大姐！！！！
口腔方面的外文文獻翻譯成品可棒提供幫助的親，。
『叄』 考研復試中的專業文獻翻譯應該怎麼准備
我們學校在復試的時候面試階段也會有英文文獻翻譯，因為我是保研的回，之前經過答一次面試，所以我們學校的情況是會准備幾段英文文獻的紙條，然後進去之後你隨便抽一段，讀出來，有專門的老師會糾正你的英語發音，讀完或者讀了一部分之後會把紙條收走，讓你復述內容，其實很少有人能馬上復述出來的，因為在讀的時候總是在注意發音，可能主要看看你的英文功底怎樣吧~不要緊張，祝你成功呀~
『肆』 哪位大俠可以發些有關社區矯正的外文文獻和中文翻譯。強調一下，看不懂外文，呵呵。一定要有翻譯。謝謝
有沒有再發一份 跪謝
『伍』 英語翻譯：「矯正牙齒」
Orthodontic treatment 正牙治療，即「牙齒矯正」
Orthodontic treatment is a way of straightening or moving teeth, to improve the appearance of the teeth and how they work.
＊Orthodontics【醫】正牙學
例：I will get/have orthodontic treatment. 我將要矯正牙齒。
希望回答對你有幫助。
『陸』 求外文--文獻翻譯（高手請進）
手譯，保證質量.
有幾點要說明:1.人名都沒有譯,因為如果要譯的話,只能音譯,難以統一.
2.對於專業詞彙,一定要核對.保證大概意思無誤,但是細微之處請核對.
3.因為在這兒看不出字體(如斜體),所以只能按照我對英文文獻的了解和理解來譯,估計不會出什麼大錯,但還是請仔細核對.
4.關於中文注釋和英文注釋的格式,請參考以下網頁:
http://zhxm5588.bokee.com/viewdiary.14816117.html
有非常詳細的說明.
5.30分太少,50分也太少,譯這個東西太費勁.
6.Good luck.
=========================================
參考資料
[1]W.C. Cohen, E.F. Johnston,《雙管式熱轉換器的動力學特點》，《工業工程化學》第48期/卷（1956年）1031—1034頁
[2] A. Meaburn, F.M. Hughes,《分布式太陽能收集磁場的諧振特性》，《太陽能》51期第3卷（1993年）215——221頁
[3] V.P. Paruchuri, R.R. Rhinehart, 《熱轉換器非線性控制模型的實驗解析》，載《美國控制會議匯刊》，巴爾的摩-馬里蘭，1994年，3533——3537頁
[4] M.H.R. Fazlur Rahman, R. Devanathan, 《熱轉換器的反饋線性化》，載《第33屆控制與決策會議匯刊》，布埃納維斯塔湖-佛羅里達，1994年，2936-2937頁
[5] L. Xia, J.A.D. Abreu-Garcı´a, T.T. Hartley, 《熱轉換器的建模與模擬》，載《電氣和電子工程師協會（IEEE）國際系統工程會議匯刊》，俄亥俄，1991年，453–456頁
[6] L. Ljung, 《系統辨識》，第二版，用戶理論系列叢書，Prentice Hall 出版社，新澤西,1999年
[7] D.R. Coughanowr, 《工藝系統分析與控制》，第二版，化學工程叢書，McGraw Hill出版，1991年
[8] A. Meaburn, F.M. Hughes, 《分布式太陽能收集磁場諧振抵消（對消）的定期調整性控制策略》，《太陽能》52期（第二卷），1994年，155-166頁
[9] A. Meaburn, F.M. Hughes,《應用於大型拋物出口收集器陣列的簡易預測控制器》，《太陽能》56期（6卷），（1996年），583–595頁
[10] L. Cuiyan, Z. Dongchun, Z. Xianyi, 《重復控制的理論與應用》，載《SICE札幌年會匯刊》，2004年，27–34頁
『柒』 求未成年人社區矯正外文翻譯，謝謝啦
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL INTERVENTIONS
In their seminal article, Andrews and his colleagues (1990) argued that to be effective in
recing recidivism, correctional programs must provide treatment that is clinically relevant
and draws from the psychological literature of behavioral modification. They found
that juvenile correctional programs that were most effective in recing recidivism were
those that ascribed to three major principles: the delivery of services to high-risk cases, the
targeting of criminogenic needs, and the use of cognitive and behavioral modalities. Specifically,
they found that juvenile correctional programs that ascribed to these principles
had a relatively strong effect (mean phi = .29) when compared both to rehabilitative programs
that did not (mean phi = –.07) and to more traditional criminal sanctions, such as probation
and restitution (mean phi = –.06).
A follow-up meta-analysis in 1999 concted by Dowden and Andrews (1999) proced
similar results. Their examination of more than 200 effect sizes found that overall, juvenile
correctional treatment had a weak, albeit significant, average effect size (phi = .08). Furthermore,
their results again suggested that programs that used a cognitive behavioral treatment
modality, targeted high-risk youth, and attempted to change criminogenic needs were all
more effective (phi = .28) than those programs that did not (phi = –.08).
Lipsey (1999) also used the meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of juvenile correctional
treatment. His analysis examined more than 200 correctional interventions for
serious youthful offenders and concluded that correctional interventions with specific characteristics
were effective in recing recidivism. Of interest, Lipsey also examined 83
programs for institutionalized youth, 8 of which were categorized as community residential
facilities. Lipsey』 results suggest that although on average, there were positive effects for
the community-based residential facilities, there was significant variation in the effect sizes
within this group. The small number of studies precluded an analysis of characteristics of
effective community-based residential facilities. However, in the larger analysis of programs
for institutionalized offenders, Lipsey noted that the characteristics of treatment modality,
program ration, and treatment implementation were associated with increases in program
effect size.
Also of interest, research concted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
indicates that staff characteristics are important factors in determining the effectiveness of
juvenile correctional interventions (Barnoski, 2004). Barnoski (2004) reviewed a variety of
forms of juvenile correctional interventions and found that counselors who were categorized
as competent ring quality assurance checks consistently proced higher effect sizes than counselors who were not. Furthermore, the findings indicate that counselors who were categorized as incompetent proced clients who were more likely to reoffend. These
findings are consistent with prior research that suggests that programs with trained and qualified staff are more likely to have an impact on recidivism (see Gendreau & Ross, 1979;
Palmer, 1994).
Research that uses general
A follow-up meta-analysis in 1999 concted by Dowden and Andrews (1999) proced
similar results. Their examination of more than 200 effect sizes found that overall, juvenile
correctional treatment had a weak, albeit significant, average effect size (phi = .08). Furthermore,
their results again suggested that programs that used a cognitive behavioral treatment
modality, targeted high-risk youth, and attempted to change criminogenic needs were all
more effective (phi = .28) than those programs that did not (phi = –.08).
Lipsey (1999) also used the meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of juvenile correctional
treatment. His analysis examined more than 200 correctional interventions for
serious youthful offenders and concluded that correctional interventions with specific characteristics
were effective in recing recidivism. Of interest, Lipsey also examined 83
programs for institutionalized youth, 8 of which were categorized as community residential
facilities. Lipsey』s results suggest that although on average, there were positive effects for
the community-based residential facilities, there was significant variation in the effect sizes
within this group. The small number of studies precluded an analysis of characteristics of
effective community-based residential facilities. However, in the larger analysis of programs
for institutionalized offenders, Lipsey noted that the characteristics of treatment modality,
program ration, and treatment implementation were associated with increases in program
effect size.
Also of interest, research concted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
indicates that staff characteristics are important factors in determining the effectiveness of
juvenile correctional interventions (Barnoski, 2004). Barnoski (2004) reviewed a variety of
forms of juvenile correctional interventions and found that counselors who were categorized
as competent ring quality assurance checks consistently proced higher effect
sizes than counselors who were not. Furthermore, the findings indicate that counselors who
were categorized as incompetent proced clients who were more likely to reoffend. These
findings are consistent with prior research that suggests that programs with trained and qualified
staff are more likely to have an impact on recidivism (see Gendreau & Ross, 1979;
Palmer, 1994).
Research that uses general measures of treatment integrity to predict program effectiveness
has found modest to strong correlations with recidivism. When measuring the program
integrity of 38 alt halfway houses, Lowenkamp, Latessa, et al. (2006) found that overall
698 Criminal Justice and Behavior integrity scores had r values ranging from .24 to .33. Gray (1997) examined community based correctional interventions and found a correlation of .41 between treatment integrity and program outcome. Nesovic (2003) examined more than 250 correctional programs and found that measures of treatment integrity maintained a correlation of .51 with recidivism.
Taken as a whole, research on interventions with juvenile offenders suggests that measures
of treatment integrity play an important role in the effective rection in recidivism. Characteristics such as the risk level of the youth that are served, the treatment modality and
targets, and staff characteristics have been found to be important factors that improve the
likelihood of recing recidivism. This body of research provides a compelling argument
regarding the importance of examining treatment integrity when evaluating juvenile correctional interventions, because it provides a look into the 「black box」 of correctional
interventions (Holsinger, 1999). That is, although outcome evaluations help in understanding
whether programs are effective, understanding treatment integrity provides an explanation
as to why programs are effective or not. Furthermore, understanding why their specific
program is effective or not provides practitioners with the tools to improve struggling programs
and to sustain programs that perform well.
The current research seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of Ohio』s CCFs. In doing so, it
examines how differences in treatment integrity correspond with program recidivism. The
measures of treatment integrity used in the current project are drawn from the CPAI designed
by Gendreau and Andrews (1996). Program effectiveness is measured using a quasi-experimental design to determine whether program participants were less likely to engage in
recidivism than a matched control group.
『捌』 求關於社區矯正的外文文獻和翻譯，在網上找了半天都下不下來，急求，謝謝了！
我處禁止上傳文件，相關PDF外文文獻有，翻譯得靠你自己，希望能滿足你的專需要，能幫到你，多多給點屬懸賞分吧，急用的話請多選賞點分吧，這樣更多的知友才會及時幫到你，我找到也是很花時間的，如果需要請直接網路 私信 或者 Hi 中留言貼出你在 網路知道的問題鏈接地址 及 郵箱地址